Thanks Angie, not much point in watching it now is there? Could you possibly give more major plot points away next time?

This harks back to the 'Sixth Sense' review: "and watch out for the massive twist at the end which renders the rest of the film and your viewing experience utterly moribund because now you know there's a twist you'll get it in the first 5 minutes of the film".

Are Empire hellbent on just ruining this movie for everyone, I had my suspicions with one of the stills placed on the review in the recent issue, along with the plot points within the review, but seriously you put up those retro posters less than two weeks before the movie gets released which basically ruins the whole point of the story by revealing the spy. Honestly think Empire has to take time out to realise that not every update needs to be shared especially if it's going to spoil the one film i actually was dying to see this year... if i give this one star it's for Empire's blunders not for the movie.

This review tells me nothing about the film except who the mole is, what the role of each character is, and that it's generally good. There is no analytical depth, and there's no structure either. The lack of professionalism is quite astounding, although to be honest I've come to expect it of the author, who, despite twenty years at Empire, simply can't write a good review.

Note: Before reading this review, and having asked a friend if he was going to read it, he said "No, Errigo will probably give the twist away". Too true.

Here we go again with the offensive comments towards the reviewer. As someone who has actually read the book recently, I can say that no significant spoilers have been given away in the review, and certainly that cannot be picked up from the trailers. I think it is a well written review, which is very descriptive of the aesthetic, acting and direction of the film. What more do you people want from a review in order to be satisfied?

I have a suggestion. Instead of just berating the author's critical writing skills, if you think you can do better, then why dont you write your own review and post it here to show the world your own superior writing talent. Hold on a minute, I think this section of the webpage is called "Your REVIEWS".........

My problem wasn't the reviewer's writing skills more so the fact that Empire could have with-held the posters from Paul Smith, which blatantly reveal who the spy is, I am in the process of reading the book just now as I usually do to see how the film compares, but having no knowledge of who the spy was I was keeping out of the way all spoilers away until i had read the book, until Empire revealed those 4 retro posters, with the chess pieces one being the headline image, ruins the whole point of seeing George Smiley investigate the Circus.

Plus the other commenters are probably talking about this line from the review, I myself felt the review was written well but even i thought that this line could have been left out.

"Of course it is him. It had to be him. But his all-of-a-sudden apprehension and the tableau greeting the latecomer arriving at the scene of the double-dealer’s downfall, while laudable in its restraint and lack of histrionics, is a trifle too cool."

Started with the TV series last year and read the book some weeks ago and I'm at a loss where the spoilers are, either in the posters or in the review. But please don't take pains to point these out if they do exist. I might be enlightened but it'll spoil other people.

But very briefly. Is there confusion over spy and mole? Because they're ALL frickin spies. I don't know if that sets anyone's mind at rest.

I think people have an opportunity now not to ruin it for themselves by banging this drum about spoilers, the discussion might throw up accusations and refutations that just simply narrow it down for everybody.

No one has to but I would implore people to please stay off the subject until at the very least the 16th comes and you can critique the review on personal experience.

Firstly, the section "Your Reviews" is ambiguous. Maybe it refers to 'your reviews of our reviews'. There are no set rules here. Why shouldn't readers be able to criticise reviewers they think are rubbish?

And secondly, your challenge for me to attempt to write my own review of the film misses the point. Whether my own review were to better Errigo's or not is irrelevant. Just because I haven't written a review and criticise hers somehow excludes me from commenting on it? Your logic is flawed.

Firstly, the section "Your Reviews" is ambiguous. Maybe it refers to 'your reviews of our reviews'. There are no set rules here. Why shouldn't readers be able to criticise reviewers they think are rubbish?

And secondly, your challenge for me to attempt to write my own review of the film misses the point. Whether my own review were to better Errigo's or not is irrelevant. Just because I haven't written a review and criticise hers somehow excludes me from commenting on it? Your logic is flawed.

Point taken; however I won't be drawn into a big debate in this section about the rights and wrongs of peoples opinions of which we are all entitled to (because I don't think it is particularly interesting for other people to read).

However what I will say is that I think I believe that people need to turn down the dial with the nasty and often personal attacks on the Empire staff and remember that if the writers weren't as good as they are, we wouldn't be here discussing this in the first place and we certainly wouldn't keep coming back. Collectively these guys are respected by the film industry the world over and they wouldn't get the access they do if they didn't know a thing or two in the first place.

Lets try to keep it friendly, lay off with personal attacks and maybe lets think a bit more sensitively about how we phrase our complaints in future. Otherwise I think priviledges such as this (the ability to comment upon a review) will simply be taken away from us.

There's a lot of pedantic fanboyish abuse that the writers get on here, but this is a poor review.

It's unnecessary to name-check every actor and most unforgivably there's no technical analysis, while the actual piece seems lost for aspects to comment on and is thus reduced to using superfluous adjectives or adverbs to make up the word count.

What about the cinematography, or the music, or the production design? It's a period piece so why not indulge in a retro-cum-nostalgic angle as someone who lived (albeit not in London I'd imagine) in the 1970s.

As someone who has seen the BBC series, I agree this piece is overly spoilerish, and it hammers this home for no discernible reason other than to be mischievous. Limiting the word count may be wiser ahead of future big film reviews.

As someone who has read the book I would agree with those who've said that there are no spoilers here. Still, I'd recommend watching the film before reading the review because part of the joy of TTSS is being able to see the way the various cogs of The Circus fit together.

I do, however, think that the Paul Smith posters are a spoiler and should be labelled as such. I get what demoncleaner says about the difference between 'spy' and 'mole' but in the novel no one is assigned the codename 'spy' (obviously) so the fact that that suspect has had his codename replaced with spy is a bit of a giveaway. For those who don't want to know, don't look at the posters.

But, concurrently and contradictorily, it wasn't really a spoiler until people started saying it was a spoiler in the comments section. That's why I chose to comment about it here rather than on that thread.

Can't wait for the film

_____________________________

Visit a film blog written by someone you don't know and who has little authority on the subject and whose blog should only be of interest to close friends and family....

I agree with danmorrish that the personal attacks need to be toned down a bit. Do you speak to other people like this in person? Is it really ncessary to speak like this? Persoanlly, if i was in Empire's shoes, I would be more inclined to not listen to the more aggressive posts.

"Of course, if you haven’t worked out who it is by then, you must be very innocent in the ways of these things. Of course it is him. It had to be him"

maybe some people are innocent or dumb and are not tired film crtics who have their heads stuck in movies for 20 years and are immune to plot twists....

Reckless for the editor to allow this line in. Its alters how you watch the movie even if you can guess it. no suspense now. I wont watch this film now. Even to respect younger readers, very poor form to leave the line in...Thank a bunch.

"Of course, if you haven’t worked out who it is by then, you must be very innocent in the ways of these things. Of course it is him. It had to be him"

maybe some people are innocent or dumb and are not tired film crtics who have their heads stuck in movies for 20 years and are immune to plot twists....

Reckless for the editor to allow this line in. Its alters how you watch the movie even if you can guess it. no suspense now. I wont watch this film now. Even to respect younger readers, very poor form to leave the line in...Thank a bunch.

Just got back from the preview screening at the NFT. Thought it was expertly crafted, but surprisingly complicated. So much so that I was scratching my head to keep up with the plot. Thankfully my cinema-going companion turned to me at the end with the same puzzled look on his face.

By the way, as someone who hadn't read the book or seen the tv show, the review doesn't give away the mole.

It does however give away far too much for a review, and should be re-classified as a summary. I wish reviews wouldn't just simple explain things that happen in the film. Surely giving away anything to do with story that could be part of the surprise should be withheld from the audience. Simply put - reviewers should ask themselves, is this something i would want to know before I watch this film?

"Of course, if you haven't worked out who it is by then, you must be very innocent in the ways of these things. Of course it is him. It had to be him"

maybe some people are innocent or dumb and are not tired film crtics who have their heads stuck in movies for 20 years and are immune to plot twists....

Reckless for the editor to allow this line in. Its alters how you watch the movie even if you can guess it. no suspense now. I wont watch this film now. Even to respect younger readers, very poor form to leave the line in...Thank a bunch.

Talk about throwing your toys out of the pram!

In the book Le Carre hangs the name over every chapter, almost every paragraph, every sentence where there's a bitter lesson learned. The name must be mentioned more times than anyone else. By that token Angie is just addressing the fact that it's more a "Why-dunnit?" than "Who-dunnit?". It's circumnavigating the people that might come out and crow that they guessed it, where guessing who is not the point at all.

All I'm saying is that there will be very little surprise in it for me, but fuck, am I not waiting for this with baited breath. So for God's sake Adrianos go see it and don't let what you think you know put you off.

Great review as always - but without wishing to demean Empire's non-spoilerific stance, perhaps it would be nice if you hadn't pretty much given away who the mole is in the final few paragraphs. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence could deduce who it is. I'll see if I'm proven right later!

Seen this this morning. Absolutely class. It moves at quite a slow pace but is utterly absorbing. Acting wise there are no weak links,this is A Game stuff. It´s the closest thing i´ve seen to watching a play on the big screen.

Great review as always - but without wishing to demean Empire's non-spoilerific stance, perhaps it would be nice if you hadn't pretty much given away who the mole is in the final few paragraphs. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence could deduce who it is. I'll see if I'm proven right later!

Prove me wrong, but this is absolute bollocks. I've watched the film, and re-read the review with this in mind and cannot see how the review gives anything away.

I wasn't expecting a action packed Spooks or James Bond spy film more a gripping spy drama. However despite the great cast I'm sorry but I was so bored watching it! If it wasn't for all the rave reviews and great cast and that I had company with me I would have walked out within the first half an hour. The beginning and end section was watchable but that was it. I kept waiting to get gripped by it and I never was. Normally I'm great at choosing movies I will like but this was just too slow for me and drawn out. Give me Spooks anytime over this snoozefest! 2/5

I wasn't expecting a action packed Spooks or James Bond spy film more a gripping spy drama. However despite the great cast I'm sorry but I was so bored watching it! If it wasn't for all the rave reviews and great cast and that I had company with me I would have walked out within the first half an hour. The beginning and end section was watchable but that was it. I kept waiting to get gripped by it and I never was. Normally I'm great at choosing movies I will like but this was just too slow for me and drawn out. Give me Spooks anytime over this snoozefest! 2/5

I expected some to be moaning about its pace. I thought it was perfect; the opening salvo drew me in, with one of the tensest opening sequences I've seen all year, only to draw back and take everything down a notch for the two hours that followed. It was masterful, and worked a charm. For me at least.

I loved, loved it, fucking loved it...but buyer beware it is fucking slow! I think you have to bring a lot of patience to it. Each scene in and of itself was immaculate but there seemed no dramatic impetus between them. I worried for it until I realised Tomas alfredson was having a fucking ball most of all and every scene had an amusing extaneous detail to it that raised an eyebrow or a grin at choice moments. No more so during significant departures from the source material and it's principal adaptation. Take for instance the drastically different take on operation testify with Jim prideaux at the start. I was only just beginning to come to terms with it's temerity when I realised how brilliantly fuckibg creepy it was. You think it's a slow coach movie but watch it with the sound down and realise how self enjoyed this director is being amid the stricture of understated performance. Turn the volume up and you're for a rogue's gallery of flawless character acting. Oldman is smiley and I think the principal achievement of the movie is reinventing smiley as a modern fucking icon, if he couldn't beat bond or Bourne he could make a good fist of telling these unruly toddlers to go to fucking bed!